Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Real-world robotaxi users describe the cabin as an autonomous, semi-private space—not merely a ride—and this reframes robotaxi design.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:43 UTC pith:TMVQJL4V

load-bearing objection Careful, transparent qualitative study of real robotaxi riders in China; the framework is useful but overgeneralized, and the 'first real-world' claim doesn't survive contact with its own references. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.19107 v3 pith:TMVQJL4V submitted 2026-02-22 cs.RO cs.HC

A User-driven Design Framework for Robotaxi

Yue Deng , Changyang He This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.HC
keywords robotaxiautonomous drivinguser experiencedesign frameworksemi-private spacetrustprivacyautoethnography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper claims that people who have actually ridden in robotaxis experience them as autonomous, semi-private transitional spaces where they feel freer to relax, work, or talk than in a human-driven taxi, even while knowing the vehicle records them. Through 18 interviews and 22 first-person test rides in China, it identifies the concrete frictions that keep this space from feeling trustworthy: rigid pick-up and drop-off points, over-cautious driving, unclear emergency controls, and thin explanations for unexpected behavior. The paper turns these findings into a user-driven design framework covering hailing, pick-up, traveling, and drop-off phases, with specific features such as pre-ride configuration, context-aware pickup facilitation, driving-behavior explainability, and accountable feedback. If correct, the framework gives designers and operators a practical, evidence-based starting point for making robotaxis feel safe and accountable rather than merely functional.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in real-world use, passengers perceive robotaxis not just as transport but as autonomous, semi-private transitional spaces: the absence of a human driver lowers the social intrusion of monitoring and in-vehicle presence, so users feel freer to engage in personal activities, while remaining aware of in-cabin recording and adjusting their behavior. This perception coexists with polarized safety views (some fear reduced control, others feel safer than with human drivers), persistent frictions around limited flexibility and transparency, and ethical concerns about accountability. The paper argues from these findings that robotaxi design should span the full journey—hai

What carries the argument

The central object is the user-driven design framework for robotaxis, organized around four journey phases (hailing, pick-up, traveling, drop-off) with twelve proposed design directions, from pre-ride configuration and system disclosure to context-aware drop-off facilitation and accountable feedback. The framework is carried by the mixed qualitative method: 18 semi-structured interviews with actual robotaxi users and 22 autoethnographic rides by the authors, analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. The interpretive lens tying everything together is the concept of the robotaxi as an 'autonomous, semi-private transitional space,' which is used to explain why agency, privacy indifference,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a self-selected group of 18 young, mostly highly educated Apollo Go users in China, plus 22 rides by the two authors, is enough to characterize robotaxi user experience generally and to validate the proposed design framework.

What would settle it

A larger, more diverse study in a different cultural context—for example, with older adults or users in North America or Europe—would falsify or sharply qualify the central claim if it found that passengers experience in-cabin monitoring as intrusive rather than discreet, and that the 'semi-private transitional space' framing does not hold. Concretely, a survey or interview study with more than 100 participants across age and culture groups, measuring perceived privacy intrusion and felt freedom to engage in personal activities, would settle whether the finding generalizes beyond the studied p

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If accepted, the four-phase framework gives design teams a concrete checklist for robotaxi UX, directly prioritizing transparency (arrival-time and pricing breakdowns) and emergency controls (visible physical buttons and pre-ride safety education).
  • The finding that users feel less socially intruded-upon in a robotaxi suggests that interior design should deliberately exploit this semi-private space with entertainment, relaxation, and companion features, rather than treating the cabin as purely functional.
  • The polarized safety perceptions imply that trust is constructed through explanations and observable system behavior, so that explainability is not an optional extra but a core requirement for robotaxi acceptability.
  • The ethical concerns about accountability after customization imply that legal frameworks for autonomous driving must be developed in parallel with any user-facing customization features, not after them.
  • The empirical grounding in real deployment distinguishes this work from simulation- or wizard-of-oz studies, providing a practice-driven baseline for future robotaxi design research.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A broader and more diverse sample, including older adults, families with children, and users outside China, might reveal that the 'semi-private space' perception is culturally specific: in societies with stronger privacy norms, in-cabin monitoring could produce more resistance than indifference, which would shift the design priorities.
  • The framework is testable in operational deployments: comparing satisfaction and trust metrics before and after implementing pre-ride disclosure, physical emergency buttons, or context-aware drop-off facilitation would isolate which of the twelve directions carries the most weight.
  • If the semi-private space perception becomes a design goal, it suggests new metrics for robotaxi UX—such as 'felt freedom to engage in personal activities' or 'perceived social intrusion of monitoring'—that current acceptance models do not capture.
  • The authors' autoethnographic finding that safety instructions are inconsistent across interfaces points to a regulatory opportunity: standardizing emergency signage and in-vehicle safety education could become a low-cost, high-impact policy intervention for robotaxi operators.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative field study of robotaxi user experience in China, combining 18 semi-structured interviews with users and 22 autoethnographic rides by the two authors. The findings identify motivations (low cost, recommendations, curiosity), perceived advantages (agency, behavioral consistency, transparency), and frictions (limited flexibility, insufficient transparency, management, robustness, and emergency-handling concerns), as well as perceptions of privacy, safety, ethics, and trust. The central claim is that users do not experience robotaxis merely as transport but as 'autonomous, semi-private transitional spaces,' and the paper derives a four-phase (hailing, pick-up, traveling, drop-off) user-driven design framework with eleven design directions. The method is reported in unusual detail, including a full interview protocol, pilot-inclusion policy, saturation check, and explicit limitations.

Significance. If read as a transferable qualitative account of current robotaxi use in a major deployment context, the paper is a useful contribution. Its strengths are the transparency of the qualitative protocol, the use of authentic ride experiences in addition to interviews, and the concrete, stage-based design directions. The 'semi-private transitional space' idea is a plausible and potentially generative conceptualization. However, the contribution is currently framed as a general 'user-driven design framework for robotaxis' and as the 'first real-world account,' both of which outrun the evidence. The stress-test concern about generalizability lands, and the circularity concern partially lands with respect to the autoethnographic validation step. These are fixable with scoping, but they affect the central claim and therefore require revision before acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3 and contributions] The paper twice claims to be the 'first' real-world empirical investigation of robotaxi user experience ('this work presents the first empirical investigation…', §2.3; 'We provide the first real-world account…', contributions). This is contradicted by the manuscript's own cited literature: [36] is a field-test study of robo-taxi user acceptance, [25] reports a field study of robotaxi HMI and perceived safety, [84] uses field tests to study robotaxi anxiety and HMI relief, and [53] is a real-life WOZ study of robo-taxi passengers. Please either narrow the novelty claim to what is genuinely new (e.g., the combination of interviews with multi-platform autoethnography, or the specific analytical lens of semi-private transitional space) or remove the 'first' wording.
  2. [§3.2.3] The autoethnographic analysis is described as both 'supplementing and validating' the interview-derived codebook, and the authors state that 'invalid codes were removed.' Two examples are given: participants who reported that heated seats were unavailable, and participants who misunderstood in-cabin cameras as non-recording. Since the object of study is user perception, a participant's factually incorrect belief is itself data, not noise. The authors do say that misunderstandings are 'treated as meaningful perceptions,' but the blanket removal of 'invalid' codes remains in tension with the user-driven framing. Please separate factual verification from perceptual coding: retain perceptual codes with an analytic annotation about objective feature availability, and specify how disagreements between autoethnographic and interview evidence were resolved, rather than using the researchers' rid
  3. [§3.1.1, Table 1, §5, §7] The framework is presented as a general 'user-driven design framework for robotaxis' (Sections 1, 5, 8 and the abstract), but the empirical base is 18 self-selected participants aged 19–29, mostly bachelor's degree or above, 16/18 using Apollo Go, all in China. Section 7 acknowledges the demographic limits and calls the framework 'initial,' but the framing throughout the paper is much stronger. Many of the coded frictions (fixed stops, opaque wait estimates, emergency-button visibility, pricing practices) are platform- and cohort-specific, likely reflecting Apollo Go's current interface and the expectations of young, educated Chinese users. To make the central claim defensible, please (a) scope the framework explicitly as a transferable starting point grounded in China/Apollo Go use; (b) add an analysis of which findings are likely platform-dependent vs. common to current robotaxi system
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4.1] Typo: 'In our autoethnographic, we found…' should read 'In our autoethnographic study…' or 'In our autoethnography, we found…' Also, hyphenation of 'autoethnographic' is inconsistent across the manuscript.
  2. [Throughout] Participant labels are inconsistent: Table 1 uses P1–P18, but the text often uses P01, P06, P04, etc. Please standardize to a single convention.
  3. [§3.2.3] The sentence 'Data collection ceased when no new themes emerged' gives no evidence for saturation in the autoethnographic data. Please report how many rides were analyzed before this decision, or otherwise document the saturation judgment.
  4. [Figure 1 and §5] The framework diagram lists four phases and eleven design dimensions, but the relationships among the dimensions are not explained. A sentence on how the dimensions were associated with phases (e.g., why 'In-ride Experience Enrichment' is only under Traveling) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are grounded in independently collected interview and autoethnographic data, with no fitted predictions, no load-bearing self-citations, and an explicitly acknowledged limitation section.

full rationale

This is an inductive qualitative study rather than a derivation with fitted parameters or predictive equations, so the classic circularity patterns (self-definitional reductions, fitted input called prediction, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz-smuggling via citation) do not apply. The central findings—motivations, perceived advantages and challenges, privacy/safety/ethics/trust perceptions, and design expectations—are supported by direct participant quotations and researcher ride diaries, not by parameters fit to the target outcome. The four-phase design framework (hailing, pick-up, traveling, drop-off) mirrors the interview protocol's journey walkthrough, but the content of each design direction is drawn from participant statements and autoethnographic observations, not entailed by the protocol itself. The only nearby concern is Section 3.2.3, where autoethnographic validation was used to check and refine interview-derived codes and 'invalid codes were removed.' This is a methodological triangulation step, and the paper explicitly frames interview data as providing external grounding to counterbalance the researcher's dual role; it does not reduce the results to the authors' prior conclusions. Moreover, the authors cite no prior work of their own as load-bearing evidence, and the same section retains participant misunderstandings as 'meaningful perceptions' rather than using researcher experience to overwrite them. Section 7 explicitly limits the framework as an initial, non-comprehensive set of design priorities pending larger and more diverse samples, further indicating that the authors do not present the framework as a necessary consequence of their method. No circular step can be exhibited by quotation and reduction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework and findings rest on qualitative assumptions about sample representativeness, recall accuracy, saturation, and the validity of the researchers' autoethnographic rides as both data and validator. No numeric free parameters or invented entities are involved.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Participants recruited through social media and snowball sampling, screened only by self-reported robotaxi use within six months, are taken to represent robotaxi users across China.
    Section 3.1.1; the study draws user-level conclusions from this self-selected pool, though all participants are young and 16/18 used Apollo Go.
  • domain assumption Self-reported ride counts, last-use dates, and interview recollections are accurate enough for the analysis.
    Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2; no independent verification beyond optional screenshots or trip records.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation reached after ~15 interviews, confirmed with 3 more, is sufficient to stop data collection.
    Section 3.1.1; saturation is an interpretive judgment, not a formal criterion.
  • domain assumption The researchers' 22 autoethnographic rides are a valid source of user experience and can validate or invalidate interviewees' statements.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.2.3; the paper removes 'invalid codes' based on researcher experience, making this the most fragile methodological assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32296 in / 12117 out tokens · 111746 ms · 2026-08-02T21:43:23.809731+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Robotaxis are emerging as a promising form of urban mobility, but removing human drivers fundamentally reshapes passenger-vehicle interaction and raises new design challenges. To inform robotaxi design based on real-world experience, we conducted 18 semi-structured interviews and autoethnographic ride experiences to examine users' perceptions, experiences, and expectations for robotaxi design. We found that users valued benefits such as increased agency and consistent driving. However, they also encountered challenges such as limited flexibility, insufficient transparency, and emergency handling concerns. Notably, users perceived robotaxis not merely as a mode of transportation, but as autonomous, semi-private transitional spaces, which made users feel less socially intrusive to engage in personal activities. Safety perceptions were polarized: some felt anxiety about reduced control, while others viewed robotaxis as safer than humans due to their cautious, law-abiding nature. Based on the findings, we propose a user-driven design framework spanning hailing, pick-up, traveling, and drop-off phases to support trustworthy, transparent, and accountable robotaxi design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19107 by Changyang He, Yue Deng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A User-driven Design Framework for Robotaxis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ala’a Al-Momani, David Balenson, Christoph Bösch, Zoltán Ádám Mann, Sebastian Pape, and Jonathan Petit. [n. d.]. Lessons from a Robotaxi: Challenges in Selecting Privacy-Enhancing Technologies. ([n. d.])

  2. [2]

    Ala’a Al-Momani, David Balenson, Zoltán Adám Mann, Sebastian Pape, Jonathan Petit, and Christoph Bösch. 2024. Navigating privacy patterns in the era of robotaxis. In2024 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW). IEEE, 32–39

    2024

  3. [3]

    Carol Auh. [n. d.].Space as Interface: Designing an in-car experience in a robotaxi as a liminal space transitioning from work to home with meaning. Ph. D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University

  4. [4]

    Patrick Biernacki and Dan Waldorf. 1981. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological methods & research10, 2 (1981), 141–163

    1981

  5. [5]

    Charlotte Brandebusemeyer, Klas Ihme, and Esther Bosch. 2022. Travelers’ information need in automated vehicles-a psychophysiological analysis. In2022 Human-Centered Cognitive Systems (HCCS). IEEE, 1–6

    2022

  6. [6]

    Thorben Brandt, Marc Wilbrink, and Michael Oehl. 2026. Communicating minimal risk maneuvers to passengers in highly automated vehicles: Ensuring hedonic user experience with media rich in-vehicle HMIs.Applied Ergonomics 132 (2026), 104697

    2026

  7. [7]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  8. [8]

    California Public Utilities Commission. 2022. CPUC Press Release for First Autonomous Vehicle Driverless Deployment Permit Approval. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/uploadedfiles/cpucwebsite/content/licensing/ autovehicle/2022-06-03-cpuc-issues-first-driverless-av-passenger-service-deployment-permit.pdf. Accessed: 2026- 02-01

    2022

  9. [9]

    Marta E Cecchinato, Anna L Cox, and Jon Bird. 2017. Always on (line)? User experience of smartwatches and their role within multi-device ecologies. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3557–3568

    2017

  10. [10]

    Feishu Help Center. [n. d.]. Feishu Minues. https://www.feishu.cn/hc/en-US/articles/022111234449-use-minutes. Accessed: 2024-12-23. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2026. 1:30 Deng et al

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Mark Colley, Tim Fabian, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. Investigating the effects of external communication and automation behavior on manual drivers at intersections.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, MHCI (2022), 1–16

    2022

  12. [12]

    2021.Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles

    On-Road Automated Driving (ORAD) Committee. 2021.Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE international

    2021

  13. [13]

    2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications

    2014

  14. [14]

    Sally Jo Cunningham and Matt Jones. 2005. Autoethnography: a tool for practice and education. InProceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand chapter’s international conference on Computer-human interaction: making CHI natural. 1–8

    2005

  15. [15]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory.Handbook of theories of social psychology1, 20 (2012), 416–436

    2012

  16. [16]

    The Economist. 2025. Why China is pulling ahead in the robotaxi race. https://www.economist.com/business/2025/11/ 26/why-china-is-pulling-ahead-in-the-robotaxi-race. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2025

  17. [17]

    Matthias Fassl and Katharina Krombholz. 2023. Why I Can’t Authenticate—Understanding the Low Adoption of Authentication Ceremonies with Autoethnography. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2023

  18. [18]

    Daniel S Fowler and Carsten Maple. 2024. A robotaxi artificial intelligence safety failure. InInternational Conference on AI and the Digital Economy (CADE 2024), Vol. 2024. IET, 48–54

    2024

  19. [19]

    Laura Fraade-Blanar, Francesca Favarò, Johan Engstrom, Melissa Cefkin, Ryan Best, John Lee, and Trent Victor. 2024. Being good (at driving): Characterizing behavioral expectations on automated and human driven vehicles. InAutomated Road Transportation Symposium. Springer, 81–105

    2024

  20. [20]

    Jenny Gesley. 2021. Germany: Road Traffic Act Amendment Allows Driverless Vehicles on Public Roads. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-08-09/germany-road-traffic-act-amendment-allows- driverless-vehicles-on-public-roads/. Accessed: 2026-02-01

    2021

  21. [21]

    Apollo Go. 2025. Apollo Go Updates (Chinese). https://www.apollogo.com/ch/news/15388. Accessed: 2026-01-19

    2025

  22. [22]

    Apollo Go. 2026. Apollo Go Robotaxi: Autonomous ride-hailing service provider. https://www.apollogo.com/. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2026

  23. [23]

    Anne Goralzik, Alexandra König, Laura Alčiauskait˙e, and Tally Hatzakis. 2022. Shared mobility services: an accessibility assessment from the perspective of people with disabilities.European transport research review14, 1 (2022), 34

    2022

  24. [24]

    Chao Gu, Lie Zhang, and Yingjie Zeng. 2024. How to promote the adoption of electric robotaxis: Understanding the moderating role of inclusive design on interactive features.Sustainability16, 20 (2024), 8882

    2024

  25. [25]

    Yaoqin Gu, Youyu Sheng, Yujia Duan, and Jingyu Zhang. 2024. How Do Different HMIs of Autonomous Driving Monitoring Systems Influence the Perceived Safety of Robotaxis Passengers? a Field Study. InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 51–60

    2024

  26. [26]

    Peter A Hancock, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Jack Stewart. 2019. On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 16 (2019), 7684–7691

    2019

  27. [27]

    It’s the Company, the Government, You and I

    Julie Haney, Yasemin Acar, and Susanne Furman. 2021. " It’s the Company, the Government, You and I": User Perceptions of Responsibility for Smart Home Privacy and Security. In30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). 411–428

    2021

  28. [28]

    Joo-Wha Hong, Yunwen Wang, and Paulina Lanz. 2020. Why is artificial intelligence blamed more? Analysis of faulting artificial intelligence for self-driving car accidents in experimental settings.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction36, 18 (2020), 1768–1774

    2020

  29. [29]

    2022.How to establish robotaxi trustworthiness through In-Vehicle interaction design

    Tianxin Hua. 2022.How to establish robotaxi trustworthiness through In-Vehicle interaction design. Master’s thesis. University of Cincinnati

    2022

  30. [30]

    Susan Jia and Jiaying Ding. 2024. Will customers’ understanding of the trolley dilemma hinder their adoption of Robotaxi?Sustainability16, 7 (2024), 2977

    2024

  31. [31]

    Gwangbin Kim, Seokhyun Hwang, Minwoo Seong, Dohyeon Yeo, Daniela Rus, and SeungJun Kim. 2024. TimelyTale: a multimodal dataset approach to assessing passengers’ explanation demands in highly automated vehicles.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies8, 3 (2024), 1–60

    2024

  32. [32]

    Voiceless

    Niamh Kinchin. 2024. “Voiceless”: the procedural gap in algorithmic justice.International Journal of Law and Information Technology32 (2024), eaae024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Johannes Kraus, David Scholz, Dina Stiegemeier, and Martin Baumann. 2020. The more you know: trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency. Human factors62, 5 (2020), 718–736

    2020

  34. [34]

    Anton Kuznietsov, Balint Gyevnar, Cheng Wang, Steven Peters, and Stefano V Albrecht. 2024. Explainable AI for safe and trustworthy autonomous driving: A systematic review.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2026. A User-driven Design Framework for Robotaxis 1:31 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Joakim Laine, Matti Minkkinen, and Matti Mäntymäki. 2024. Ethics-based AI auditing: A systematic literature review on conceptualizations of ethical principles and knowledge contributions to stakeholders.Information & Management 61, 5 (2024), 103969

    2024

  36. [36]

    Sunghee Lee, Soyoung Yoo, Seongsin Kim, Eunji Kim, and Namwoo Kang. 2022. Effect of robo-taxi user experience on user acceptance: Field test data analysis.Transportation research record2676, 2 (2022), 350–366

    2022

  37. [37]

    Jingjin Li, Jiajing Guo, and Gilly Leshed. 2024. Meditating in live stream: An autoethnographic and interview study to investigate motivations, interactions and challenges.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–33

    2024

  38. [38]

    2016.From trolley to autonomous vehicle: Perceptions of responsibility and moral norms in traffic accidents with self-driving cars

    Jamy Li, Xuan Zhao, Mu-Jung Cho, Wendy Ju, and Bertram F Malle. 2016.From trolley to autonomous vehicle: Perceptions of responsibility and moral norms in traffic accidents with self-driving cars. Technical Report. SAE Technical Paper

    2016

  39. [39]

    Mengqi Li, Liang Qi, Wenjing Luan, Qurra Tul Ann Talukder, and Xiwang Guo. 2025. Optimization of Robotaxi Dispatch With Pick-Up/Drop-Off-Point and Boarding-Time Recommendation.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems26, 12 (2025), 22524–22537

    2025

  40. [40]

    Wenbo Li, Guofa Li, Ruichen Tan, Cong Wang, Zemin Sun, Ying Li, Gang Guo, Dongpu Cao, and Keqiang Li. 2024. Review and perspectives on human emotion for connected automated vehicles.Automotive Innovation7, 1 (2024), 4–44

    2024

  41. [41]

    Dokshin Lim and Hwan Hwangbo. 2021. UX design for holistic user journey of future robotaxi. InInternational Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 976–984

    2021

  42. [42]

    Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, Jin Keun Jeong, and Meeyoung Cha. 2022. The conflict between explainable and accountable decision-making algorithms. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 2103–2113

    2022

  43. [43]

    Boyu Lin, Yifan Fan, and Rui Yang. 2025. The future of urban travel and tourism: a text mining analysis of robotaxi sentiment and adoption.Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing42, 4 (2025), 479–494

    2025

  44. [44]

    Mingyu Liu, Jianping Wu, Chunli Zhu, and Kezhen Hu. 2020. A Study on Public Adoption of Robo-Taxis in China. Journal of Advanced Transportation2020, 1 (2020), 8877499

    2020

  45. [45]

    Mingyu Liu, Jianping Wu, Chunli Zhu, and Kezhen Hu. 2022. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Robo-Taxi Services in China: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model Analysis.Journal of Advanced Transportation2022, 1 (2022), 8461212

    2022

  46. [46]

    YuanXiong Liu, Hanxi Li, and Younghwan Pan. 2025. Understanding perceived ride safety and trust formation in robotaxi services under day and night conditions.Scientific Reports15, 1 (2025), 41798

    2025

  47. [47]

    Yankuan Liu and Pei-Luen Patrick Rau. 2025. Driving Emotional Well-Being: Exploring Public Acceptance and Design Guidelines for Emotional Engagement Robotaxis (EERs).International Journal of Social Robotics17, 11 (2025), 2547–2557

    2025

  48. [48]

    Yunsheng Ma, Burhaneddin Yaman, Xin Ye, Mahmut Yurt, Jingru Luo, Abhirup Mallik, Ziran Wang, and Liu Ren. 2025. ALN-P3: Unified Language Alignment for Perception, Prediction, and Planning in Autonomous Driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15158(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Zhengtao Ma, Rafael Gomez, Togtokhtur Batbold, Zishuo Zhu, Yueteng Yu, and Ronald Schroeter. 2025. Designing for Dignity while Driving: Interaction Needs of Blind and Low-Vision Passengers in Fully Automated Vehicles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26015(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    2016.Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects

    Markus Maurer, J Christian Gerdes, Barbara Lenz, and Hermann Winner. 2016.Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects. Springer Nature

    2016

  51. [51]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  52. [52]

    Kristina Meister, Andres Kuusik, Alexander Nolte, and Karl Kruusamäe. 2025. External Human–Vehicle Interac- tion: A User Study in the Context of a Driverless Ride-Hailing Service.Transportation Research Record(2025), 03611981251391717

    2025

  53. [53]

    Johanna Meurer, Christina Pakusch, Gunnar Stevens, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2020. A wizard of oz study on passengers’ experiences of a robo-taxi service in real-life settings. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference. 1365–1377

    2020

  54. [54]

    Michael Muller. 2014. Curiosity, creativity, and surprise as analytic tools: Grounded theory method. InWays of Knowing in HCI. Springer, 25–48

    2014

  55. [55]

    Aisling Ann O’Kane, Yvonne Rogers, and Ann E Blandford. 2014. Gaining empathy for non-routine mobile device use through autoethnography. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems. 987–990

    2014

  56. [56]

    Daniel Omeiza, Helena Webb, Marina Jirotka, and Lars Kunze. 2021. Explanations in autonomous driving: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems23, 8 (2021), 10142–10162. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2026. 1:32 Deng et al

    2021

  57. [57]

    Mohammed-Javed Padinhakara. 2025. Navigating Regulatory Divergence: A Comparative Analysis of Autonomous Vehicle and Robotaxi Governance Frameworks Across Global Jurisdictions.Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies7, 5 (2025), 746–756

    2025

  58. [58]

    UK Parliament. 2024. Automated Vehicles Act 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/10/contents. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2024

  59. [59]

    Marco Pavone. 2016. Autonomous mobility-on-demand systems for future urban mobility. InAutonomous Driving: Technical, Legal and Social Aspects. Springer, 387–404

    2016

  60. [60]

    James Pierce. 2019. Smart home security cameras and shifting lines of creepiness: A design-led inquiry. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2019

  61. [61]

    Pony.ai. 2026. Pony.ai. https://pony.ai/. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2026

  62. [62]

    Liang Qi, Mengqi Li, Xiwang Guo, and Wenjing Luan. 2024. Multi-objective optimization for robotaxi dispatch with safety-carpooling mode in pandemic era.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems(2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Saeed Rahmani, Sabine Rieder, Erwin de Gelder, Marcel Sonntag, Jorge Lorente Mallada, Sytze Kalisvaart, Vahid Hashemi, and Simeon C Calvert. 2024. A systematic review of edge case detection in automated driving: Methods, challenges and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08491(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Shravan Kumar Rajaram. 2022. Development of AI Algorithms for Real-Time Environmental Perception in Autonomous Vehicles.International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science11, 12 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    Reuters. 2025. Pony.ai granted first citywide driverless commercial robotaxi permit in China’s Shen- zhen. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/ponyai-granted-first-citywide-driverless-commercial-robotaxi- permit-chinas-2025-10-31/. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2025

  66. [66]

    Eimaan Saqib, Shijing He, Junghyun Choy, Ruba Abu-Salma, Jose Such, Julia Bernd, and Mobin Javed. 2025. Bystander Privacy in Smart Homes: A Systematic Review of Concerns and Solutions.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction(2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    It is unfair, and it would be unwise to expect the user to know the law!

    Marie-Therese Sekwenz, Ben Wagner, and Simon Parkin. 2025. “It is unfair, and it would be unwise to expect the user to know the law!”–Evaluating reporting mechanisms under the Digital Services Act. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 532–546

    2025

  68. [68]

    Hong Shen, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2021. Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–29

    2021

  69. [69]

    Jingyu Song, Zhenxin Li, Shiyi Lan, Xinglong Sun, Nadine Chang, Maying Shen, Joshua Chen, Katherine A Skinner, and Jose M Alvarez. 2025. DriveCritic: Towards Context-Aware, Human-Aligned Evaluation for Autonomous Driving with Vision-Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13108(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Zheng Su, Xu Xu, and Xun Cao. 2022. What explains popular support for government monitoring in China?Journal of Information Technology & Politics19, 4 (2022), 377–392

    2022

  71. [71]

    Cella M Sum, Caroline Shi, and Sarah E Fox. 2025. ’It’s Always a Losing Game’: How Workers Understand and Resist Surveillance Technologies on the Job.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–32

    2025

  72. [72]

    Satoshi Tanaka, Kok Seang Tan, and Isamu Yamashita. 2025. Domain adaptation for different sensor configurations in 3d object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04711(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Xiaoyu Tian, Junru Gu, Bailin Li, Yicheng Liu, Yang Wang, Zhiyong Zhao, Kun Zhan, Peng Jia, Xianpeng Lang, and Hang Zhao. 2024. Drivevlm: The convergence of autonomous driving and large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12289(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Uber. 2025. WeRide and Uber Launch Middle East’s First Fully Driverless Robotaxi Commercial Operations in Abu Dhabi, UAE. https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-details/2025/WeRide-and-Uber-Launch- Middle-Easts-First-Fully-Driverless-Robotaxi-Commercial-Operations-in-Abu-Dhabi-UAE/default.aspx. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2025

  75. [75]

    Beatrice Vincenzi, Simone Stumpf, Alex S Taylor, and Yuri Nakao. 2024. Lay user involvement in developing human- centric responsible AI systems: When and how?ACM Journal on Responsible Computing1, 2 (2024), 1–25

    2024

  76. [76]

    Yanli Wang, Guozhen Tan, and Huaiwei Si. 2025. Decision modeling for automated driving in dilemmas based on bidirectional value alignment of moral theory values and fair human moral values.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour108 (2025), 14–27

    2025

  77. [77]

    Waymo. 2026. Waymo - Self-Driving Cars - Autonomous Vehicles - Ride-Hail. https://waymo.com/. Accessed: 2026-01-31

    2026

  78. [78]

    Wei Wei, Jie Sun, Wei Miao, Tong Chen, Hanchu Sun, Shuyuan Lin, and Chao Gu. 2024. Using the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to explore how to increase users’ intention to take a robotaxi.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11, 1 (2024), 1–14

    2024

  79. [79]

    WeRide. 2026. WeRide - To Transform Urban Living with Autonomous Driving. https://www.weride.ai/. Accessed: 2026-01-31. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2026. A User-driven Design Framework for Robotaxis 1:33

    2026

  80. [80]

    Jan Weschke, Francisco J Bahamonde-Birke, Kay Gade, and Evanthia Kazagli. 2021. Asking the Wizard-of-Oz: How experiencing autonomous buses affects preferences towards their use for feeder trips in public transport.Transportation research part C: emerging technologies133 (2021), 103454

    2021

Showing first 80 references.